People v. Hilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hilton

53 A.D.3d 1107, 859 N.Y.S.2d 880

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.3d 1107 (People v. Hilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hilton, 53 A.D.3d 1107, 859 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 16, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the duration of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 16, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the duration of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 1107, 859 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hilton-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack